onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?

I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?

I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.

Again that it happened in the past without human activity a possible cause is evidence that it might not be human activity that is causing it now. Also that sea ice retreat coincided with ice melt on Greenland doesn't prove that one caused the other, that both were the result from the same yet as unidentified root cause is just as plausible.

Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

onlooker wrote:Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

To act? In what way, at what cost, and with what outcome, positive or negative?

When the CC fanboys say "act", what they mean is the cessation of burning FF's for the energy they produce.

This means the end of mechanized food production, and the disappearance of 90% of human food. This means the end of industry, manufacturing, and tech. This means the end of personal transport that is not muscle-powered.

After the World population has starved and perished from the cold, the one billion or so that are left can probably figure out if the AGW theory was correct. Which in turn will support the conclusion of whether or not the FUD over CC was ever justified.

In other words, was the genocide of the human race justified by the fear of CC.

Now they will chime in and claim not to be genocidal maniacs. Then they will reiterate that we MUST STOP BURNING FF's. This is the finest example of cognitive dissonance you will ever see, IMHO.

okay here are 3 links. I am sure you can find many more. Basically, the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action is my takeaway. The outcome is us as a species maintaining a livable planet. How much is that worth?

No not the cessation but the ramping down of FF. Kaiser would have you believe that it is a better bet for our species for a few of us to venture into space and then once again expand as a population. He would just let our tremendous impacts on Earth continue and even worsen because in accord with his line of reasoning, the juggernaught of humanity cannot be stopped nor should it be. And if that means forsaking our host planet to allow it to become virtually uninhabitable, well so be it. That is simply crazy

onlooker wrote:Vts, the geologic record is clear that climate change has induced mass extinction events. And the current science is clear that GHG rise is tracking forcings on the climate. Yes, we still lack a certain level of certainty that will come when more information is collected. But, the precautionary principle should mean that humanity should act in light of the grave risks of not acting. Sufficient reasons exist to act.

To act? In what way, at what cost, and with what outcome, positive or negative?

This is the crux, some folks are very suspicious of the GND agenda and rightly so. It’s BS.

The actions should be toward Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. To try to live within our means. To lay down our debt. Go easy on the things we have, make them last. To learn that happiness and contentment comes from within, once some threshold has been crossed.

Those things in themselves will not stop global warming but the constitute the low hanging fruit, things that are easily accomplished without a WWII effort. And they would also help with resource depletion and other problems.

You know my spiel by now. I’m not supporting the GND or their idiotic agenda, it’s just more, More, MORE. What we need it LESS, Less, less.

Understand that there is only one single action that has meaning at this point in time. That is the reduction of global population to a sustainable number. That will allow the few remaining humans to live without further ecological harm.

As with meaningful action to mitigate CC, there is little hope of voluntary planned reductions. The oil peak, the coal peak, the natural gas peak will all be felt with human casualties, until the number of humans is reduced to that sustainable number.

Ibon and others would say that the Third World is best prepared for this, being a few generations closer to their agrarian or hunter/gatherer ancesters. There would be merit in that position if the population of the Third World had not exploded with access to mechanized agriculture and medicine. There is simply no hope - none at all - that this enlarged population can live as did their grandparents. There isn't enough jungle to slash&burn, nor enough clean water, nor croplands when they are reduced to manual tilling. A bone-chilling die-off approaches for the Third World.

The First World, by virtue of the fact that they have disposable income, will control all of the remaining oil and other FF's, which are traded in open exchanges. This situation will allow a few decades to convert to the new agricultural infrastructure, whatever that is. It might be electrical farm machinery, or coal-to-liquids, or (most likely) a multitude of things.

Advantage: First World, Middle Class people with bad consumer habits. Those will be solved via the increasing cost of food - when it's groceries or a new iPhone, most will choose to eat.

But "fixing Climate Change" is not happening. The lack of affordable FF's will reduce the human population. As to how much cumulative damage is done the ecology before then, who knows? That too will determine the habitability of Earth for the remaining humans.

KaiserJeep wrote:Understand that there is only one single action that has meaning at this point in time. That is the reduction of global population to a sustainable number. That will allow the few remaining humans to live without further ecological harm.

As with meaningful action to mitigate CC, there is little hope of voluntary planned reductions. The oil peak, the coal peak, the natural gas peak will all be felt with human casualties, until the number of humans is reduced to that sustainable number.

Ibon and others would say that the Third World is best prepared for this, being a few generations closer to their agrarian or hunter/gatherer ancesters. There would be merit in that position if the population of the Third World had not exploded with access to mechanized agriculture and medicine. There is simply no hope - none at all - that this enlarged population can live as did their grandparents. There isn't enough jungle to slash&burn, nor enough clean water, nor croplands when they are reduced to manual tilling. A bone-chilling die-off approaches for the Third World.

The First World, by virtue of the fact that they have disposable income, will control all of the remaining oil and other FF's, which are traded in open exchanges. This situation will allow a few decades to convert to the new agricultural infrastructure, whatever that is. It might be electrical farm machinery, or coal-to-liquids, or (most likely) a multitude of things.

Advantage: First World, Middle Class people with bad consumer habits. Those will be solved via the increasing cost of food - when it's groceries or a new iPhone, most will choose to eat.

But "fixing Climate Change" is not happening. The lack of affordable FF's will reduce the human population. As to how much cumulative damage is done the ecology before then, who knows? That too will determine the habitability of Earth for the remaining humans.

We do not agree on much but I do agree the human population needs to be reduced greatly and with celerityAnd no not via Genocide

Then WHY do you speak of eliminating the burning of FF's for the energy that warms warms us and grows and preserves and transports our food?

It is literally true today that without FF energy, 90% of the humans cannot eat or live.

OF COURSE, other tech is possible - but if any group of humans backs off on FF consumption, other humans - especially China and India, will burn such until there is no more, and the human population is 10 or 15 or 20 billion when we run out.

It is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large and world-wide, among groups that are seperate political entities. If you have no prescription that causes everybody everywhere to back off FF's simultaneously, then best get them burned and gone as quickly as possible.

That's the default condition - and all this whining about carbon emissions is therefore worse than useless, it's actually harmful, as it will prolong the FF era.

If you have no prescription that causes everybody everywhere to back off FF's simultaneously, then best get them burned and gone as quickly as possible.

Or perhaps find an alternative that is better so voluntarily adopted rather then continued use of fossil fuels. There is no reason the first car purchased by a family in China or India will not be an electric only car. The fact that they are already producing and selling them in China is a positive sign.

Of course there is a reason, and it's an economic reason. Carbon-free energy costs more. The emerging Middle Class in these countries would take a lifestyle hit if they used an EV or implemented Solar PV or a wind turbine to backfill their grid energy.

Not such a burden in the First World. A non-starter elsewhere. If your argument had merit, they would be implementing carbon-free energy today, instead of ICE cars and coal power plants.

Heck, the majority of First World consumers, who could afford carbon-free energy better than any other group, have not bothered.

Once you add in the cost of the damage done to the environment by fossil fuels and the cost to try to clean it up they are no longer cheaper then renewable energy. If you look at the projected growth rates for energy types in China you can see that they understand that and are moving away from coal as fast as is practical. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092

Current renewable generation in China is dominated by hydroelectricity, which is the country’s second-largest source of generation after coal. Wind and solar currently account for relatively small amounts of generation, at 2.7% and 0.5%, respectively. However, EIA expects substantial growth over the coming decades, consistent with the targets in China’s most recent Five-Year Plan, designed to uphold the country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In China’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) that it filed as part of the Paris Agreement, the country expressed its intention to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and increase the share of energy consumption from non-fossil sources to 20% by 2030. EIA projects solar capacity to grow to 240 GW by 2040, or by more than 7% per year from 2015 to 2040. Similarly, EIA expects nearly 280 GW of wind capacity to come online between 2015 and 2040, a growth rate of nearly 5% per year.

And much of that growth in renewable energy will go to charging new EVs bypassing the fossil fuel treadmill altogether.

That’s thanks to China’s continuous support (paywall) for NEVs, which includes government subsidies and license plate controls on diesel cars. NEVs now account for around 0.6% (link in Chinese) of all the vehicles on the road in China as of June, according to data from the Ministry of Public Security. The country wants NEV sales to make up 20% of the total auto market by 2025.

Be real. In terms of total carbon emissions, things are getting worse not better. If you go and blow a wad of cash on an EV, not one drop of gasoline is saved. We still pump it, refine it, and burn it. If by some miracle, you get 50% of the ICE vehicles off the road, well congrats - you just extended the era of gasoline burning cars twice as long before the stuff gets too expensive to use.

You can see this today with coal. High-sulfer coals that it would be illegal to burn here are being sold to China, India, and other places where they can legally be burned. Net benefit of ruinously expensive emissions regulations: American businesses that can't compete, rich coal magnates such as the Koch brothers, and increased carbon emissions from shipping coal to the other side of the world with bunker fuel, and then burning that coal in power plants without emissions controls.

I see no progress, none at all. In fact, things are worse than before.

That someone else in a growing population burns a ton of coal you saved by installing an alternative does not mean you did not first save it or that your actions are not positive. After the coal is gone or it's use forbidden your alternative will still be in place and functioning for you while that last user of coal will be on foot or freezing in the dark.

I look at the whole story. In spite of anything and everything that I do to avoid burning FF's and emitting carbon, somebody else buys the oil and coal and burns it for energy. No net carbon emissions are avoided ever. If you could figure out a way to force the oil and coal magnates to leave in the ground the FF's equivalent to the green power you generated, it would consitute a win.

But that is not ever happening. Every drop of oil and every lump of goal and every therm of gas are getting burned somewhere by someone. All of the green power efforts are wasted with respect to avoiding AGW. In fact every green kWh prolongs the age of FF burning, and allows more people to be born into an ecology about to crash.

Honestly, we are better off doing what we are doing - burning FF's like mad until they become unaffordable. If you really and truly care about the ecosystem, that is what you do. Ironically, it is also BAU for anyone that simply does not care about AGW.

That is very pessimistic of you. You assume what has been the recent reality will be the future reality but history tells us that times change. I don't know as times will change fast enough to avoid a major human die-off or extinction event but considering the adaptability and tenaciousness of the human species I would not bet against us.

My Wife and I had this discussion in very tangible terms. We own our 1887 theee story brownstone. About zip we can donto make it more energy efficient without completly gutting it and staring over and that ain’t gonna happen. But it’s in a walkable neighborhood and being a row house it’s more energy efficient than one might think.

So we moved out of our house and onto the boat, really powered our footprint. But we rent the apartment out, so the house is still there, and producing even more carbon because we lived without AC, no tenant will do that.